(32 votes cast): WPSL Poll

[Mostly Harmless]

You know, when a labour union takes away the rights of individuals to individually negotiate with their employers, they inherit a legal and moral responsibility to deal fairly with those employees. Stand up, firm your back, and demand answers from your union executive.

When did you ever have the right to individually negotiate with your employer? That was done on your behalf by the WJPA from day 1 of the company. Perhaps I missed the opportunity or the time in which individuals went into the managers office and we all came out with different work rules and different pay rates.

[mbav8r]

Gonna read your post shortly.

I think the guns will fall silent shortly as I have addressed all arguments posed to me and successfully rebutted them all.

No, you have not!
You refuse to acknowledge or believe anything that doesn’t support your paranoid view of what you think is taking place, perhaps you should seek help.
Oddly, you have nothing to gain or lose with either outcome, so are you the harbinger of truth or do you have an ulterior movtive, ie; attempting to destabilize and divide the two groups for your true desire, get rid of ALPA.

[The Tenth Man]

Alright, that was worth the read. And thank you for the citations regarding the JAZZ LOU. I honestly did think that Wasaya prsee release would trumpet the most beneficial things they could regarding the LOU. The fact that they didn't highlight the bidding for position (base, equipment, status) seems odd. Oh well, I'm odd too.

The problem with this LOU as you have described it is that the Wasaya/Bearskin pilots are taking reserved positions on a list, that are below existing bargaining unit members as of the date of the LOU. That is not the situation that would recreate the One List. Using your example, if we made the scenario resemble the One List, the Wasaya/Bearskin pilots would be able to jump ahead (significant numbers) of existing bargaining unit members as of the date of the LOU. That is a huge difference.

Remember, following ALPA rules, the current seniority list at WestJet will be organized according to DOH at WJ, with no recognition for WJE service. That's a supposition, to be sure, but based on all the evidence I have been able to unearth, nothing supports a contrary position. Kaplan, in his order of June 8, ordered all pilots hired at WJ with DOH's after the Swoop pilot DOH's, to be added at the BOTL, with no mention of credit for time at Encore. It is hard to see him missing such a crucial fact.

At this point, I'd just be blowing air to go any further. The ball is in the court of the current MEC if they want credibility going forward. I am told, by a WJ pilot who receieved the email, that the current MEC Chairman believed, four weeks ago, when he was the LEC Capt Rep that the WestJet Pilot Seniority List was the same as the WestJet Pilot Departmental List. If that is a true representation of events, that is unfortunate. There is absolutely no evidence that that is in any way possible. The WPDL contained pilots from two bargaining units. The WPSL contains pilots from one bargaining unit.

As I said, the time for truth from ALPA is more than past.

TTYL

[The Tenth Man]

No, you have not!
You refuse to acknowledge or believe anything that doesn’t support your paranoid view of what you think is taking place, perhaps you should seek help.
Oddly, you have nothing to gain or lose with either outcome, so are you the harbinger of truth or do you have an ulterior movtive, ie; attempting to destabilize and divide the two groups for your true desire, get rid of ALPA.

What an oddly myopic view of the world thinking that I have no interest whether WJ pilots are a divided group or a unified group. The organization needs all members rowing together. Having 700 pilots who will feel harmed is hardly conducive to a cohesive group.

Your comment is perhaps illuminating as to why pilots at WJ were generally unconcerned as to the outcome of the One List. They didn't have something to gain or lose...

[The Tenth Man]

When did you ever have the right to individually negotiate with your employer? That was done on your behalf by the WJPA from day 1 of the company. Perhaps I missed the opportunity or the time in which individuals went into the managers office and we all came out with different work rules and different pay rates.

I always had the legal right to negotiate unilaterally with my employer. Whether they would have agreed to my terms is not of consequence. The point is, I only lost those "legal" rights with certification.

BTW, nice to see you back. I thought you gave up on me.

[mbav8r]

[quote=mbav8r post_id=<a href="tel:1060178">1060178</a> time=<a href="tel:1543342927">1543342927</a> user_id=8159]No, you have not!
You refuse to acknowledge or believe anything that doesn’t support your paranoid view of what you think is taking place, perhaps you should seek help.
Oddly, you have nothing to gain or lose with either outcome, so are you the harbinger of truth or do you have an ulterior movtive, ie; attempting to destabilize and divide the two groups for your true desire, get rid of ALPA.

What an oddly myopic view of the world thinking that I have no interest whether WJ pilots are a divided group or a unified group. The organization needs all members rowing together. Having 700 pilots who will feel harmed is hardly conducive to a cohesive group.

Your comment is perhaps illuminating as to why pilots at WJ were generally unconcerned as to the outcome of the One List. They didn't have something to gain or lose...
[/quote]
1. adjective
“If you describe someone as myopic, you are critical of them because they seem unable to realize that their actions might have negative consequences.”
However using your definition of myopic, do you see the irony?
You claim to be concerned about the pilots rowing in the same direction but complain ALPA took away your right to be selfish(paraphrasing).
Next, you missed the whole point, if the Jazz pilots decided to allow service as an ALPA member to count, they could have. They opted to pick a date that no current Jazz pilot was affected, therefore no vote required.
In a perfect world, I would be able to carry my seniority to any ALPA carrier, this was the first step towards that end goal. If we had portability and didn’t have to start over, the companies could not play one group off another and Swoop would not have been an issue.
The WJ pilots own their seniority list, ALPA would only step in if needed but if the majority of a WJ pilots vote to allow Encore service to count, only the company would possibly stand in the way.
I’m also of the understanding common employer applies, so there’s that.

[The Tenth Man]

The WJ pilots own their seniority list, ALPA would only step in if needed but if the majority of a WJ pilots vote to allow Encore service to count, only the company would possibly stand in the way.
I’m also of the understanding common employer applies, so there’s that.

First of all, it is not “only the company” standing in the way. There is the ALPA Constitution and ALPA policies standing in the way. As I have said and said and said. A simple matter of a Breach of Contract action in court, or a DFR claim in front of the CIRB.

Yes, common employer could be attempted. And it would fail. If ALPA thought that had a remote chance of success, they would have attempted a bargaining unit description that included Encore when they certified WestJet.The Board would not be amused by a Common Employer application within two years of asking for certification of the two bargaining units separately.

So no, there isn’t the common employer option.

Not only that, but a common employer action, if successful, would mean the ALPA Merger Policy applies, as both groups are represented by ALPA. This means the integration of both seniority lists. ALPA Merger Policy prevents an ISL from changing the order of the pre-Merger lists, so any integration of the lists would penalize pilots who have already flowed (unless Encore pilots were stapled to the BOTL).

[mbav8r]

You are a dog with a bone aren’t you!
Unless I’m mistaken all the “evidence” you presented is dealing with merged lists, which would apply to a common employer situation, this is not the situation.
Why hasn’t ALPA stepped in with Jazz offering seniority to pilots at other carriers since Oct 2017. There has been a few hundred pilots hired since then, yet no policy has been enforced or remotely hinted at.
You are the ONLY one bleating on about the doom and gloom scenario you’ve created in your mind.
I’m making a prediction, the list will be exactly as it was before with exception to Swoop now being included and you personally will be the pilot to launch a legal objection to it, using all your “evidence”. I think that’s how far you would go to be right!

[The Tenth Man]

Oh brother...

I can’t launch a complaint because I wouldn’t have standing. I’m not a member of ALPA.

And you’re prediction regarding the One List would be wrong.

As no one has sent me the JAZZ LOU I can’t very well comment on it, can I? Regardless, as I pointed out above, the description of the LOU sounds like a reserved seniority number scenario, something that in no way comes close to describing the One List.

Also, just because someone hasn’t challenged the LOU in court, doesn’t mean someone wouldn’t challenge the LOU here at WJ.

TTFN

[The Tenth Man]

That's Wasaya release has nothing to do with Jazz LOU 34. Not once does it mention Jazz...
John has clearly come completely unhinged.

Well, you may be right about the press release . I looked at the date, and assumed (I’m an ass) that it was the LOU in question. If only I had the actual LOU.

As far as the unhinged part lol, I’m on my way to work. Did you want to make an official report before I assume command?

[cloak]

If it weren't for the relentless personal attacks and rude comments, this could have been an interesting debate. The case has been made for its merit. One can wonder if this poster changes handles from time to time to take a break from the incessant onslaught!

[Mostly Harmless]

I always had the legal right to negotiate unilaterally with my employer. Whether they would have agreed to my terms is not of consequence. The point is, I only lost those "legal" rights with certification.

Fair enough if you want to look at it that way. I suspect you would not have been very successful in convincing the company to negotiate 1500 individual contracts... but I see where you are coming from.

BTW, nice to see you back. I thought you gave up on me.

Never. Just busy working.

[hurtin'albertan]

Alright, that was worth the read. And thank you for the citations regarding the JAZZ LOU. I honestly did think that Wasaya prsee release would trumpet the most beneficial things they could regarding the LOU. The fact that they didn't highlight the bidding for position (base, equipment, status) seems odd. Oh well, I'm odd too.

The problem with this LOU as you have described it is that the Wasaya/Bearskin pilots are taking reserved positions on a list, that are below existing bargaining unit members as of the date of the LOU. That is not the situation that would recreate the One List. Using your example, if we made the scenario resemble the One List, the Wasaya/Bearskin pilots would be able to jump ahead (significant numbers) of existing bargaining unit members as of the date of the LOU. That is a huge difference.

Remember, following ALPA rules, the current seniority list at WestJet will be organized according to DOH at WJ, with no recognition for WJE service. That's a supposition, to be sure, but based on all the evidence I have been able to unearth, nothing supports a contrary position. Kaplan, in his order of June 8, ordered all pilots hired at WJ with DOH's after the Swoop pilot DOH's, to be added at the BOTL, with no mention of credit for time at Encore. It is hard to see him missing such a crucial fact.

At this point, I'd just be blowing air to go any further. The ball is in the court of the current MEC if they want credibility going forward. I am told, by a WJ pilot who receieved the email, that the current MEC Chairman believed, four weeks ago, when he was the LEC Capt Rep that the WestJet Pilot Seniority List was the same as the WestJet Pilot Departmental List. If that is a true representation of events, that is unfortunate. There is absolutely no evidence that that is in any way possible. The WPDL contained pilots from two bargaining units. The WPSL contains pilots from one bargaining unit.

As I said, the time for truth from ALPA is more than past.

TTYL

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. i think your conclusions and hypothesis regarding the make of the WP(D)(S)L are incorrect and based on supposition. I also think your interpretation of the alpa bylaws etc and how they apply in this scenario are incorrect.

Anyway, we have hashed this out enough. Won't be long now to see how it all shakes out. Hope your move went smooth.

L8tr alligator.

[cloak]

There! Wasn't it nice, being nice!

Upon further reflection on this issue, it may actually be better to have seniority based on DOH at WestJet, which has many benefits.
- It encourages people to flow the first opportunity they get, as opposed to waiting for more favourable time based on various factors.
- It makes upgrades more orderly at WestJet/Swoop, as those with more experience will be eligible for upgrades sooner.

At the same time, the corporation should recognize tenure at the group for benefits, vacation and pay level. As people flow, they maintain pay level on whatever equipment they go. This way the company gives credit for service at its own expense (pay, vacation, benefits) and not the pilots' (seniority).

If one were to examine this issue objectively and without personal bias or emotions, it makes the most sense, especially considering the level of experience at Encore, and at a time when people can flow to Swoop with very little time on the property.

[Diadem]

I'm posting the following on every thread in which John Swallow has raised the issue of seniority at ALPA, because it's pretty devastating to his "case":
I don't know why I didn't think to actually do it earlier, but I finally decided to stop taking Mr Swallow at his word that the references he was posting were correct, and actually look up the documents he's claiming make the One List "impossible". I thought it was strange that he was contacting the ALPA archivist and getting documents from 1956, but it turns out the reason he had to do that is because those documents are archived and no longer relevant. As an ALPA member, I those docs at my fingertips, whereas Mr Swallow wouldn't be privy to such info. Perhaps he hoped that if he bombarded us with screenshots, that we wouldn't take the time to actually look it up.
Mr Swallow asserts that the ALPA constitution of 1956 and Merger Policy require that all seniority be based on date-of-hire, and that those are the only sources of guidance that would be relevant to the current negotiations. It turns out that the ALPA constitution has been updated at least eleven times since 1956, with the most recent version dated Oct 18, 2018. The constitution itself doesn't actually have any guidance regarding seniority lists of any kind, so I looked at the Merger Policy, since Mr Swallow thinks it's the ultimate guide to forming a seniority list. This document was last updated Apr 30, 2009, and now states the following:
4. Seniority List Integration - Negotiations
(c) In cases where one or more parties to the merger has flight deck crew members with grandfather or similar special seniority rights that are limited as to job classification or status within the flight deck crew, the merger representatives shall commence efforts to arrive at a mutually satisfactory method of integration and compilation of such separate special seniority lists as may be necessary and appropriate to preserve and protect such rights in addition to the flight deck crew seniority list.
In addition, ALPA released an information sheet to explain this change in layman's terms: ALPA merger policy calls for the fair and equitable integration of seniority lists. Under the new policy, merger representatives are encouraged to consider themselves primarily as negotiators who should make a strong and focused effort to resolve seniority integration issues, with mediation and final binding arbitration mandated on unresolved issues. As the Committee evaluated the old policy, it became clear that the factors for seniority list integration (SLI) had become a source of controversy. The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category. The new merger policy mandates that the merger representatives, mediators, and arbitrators must consider these factors when constructing a seniority list; however, they are also free to consider other factors as they deem appropriate."
ALPA addressed Mr Swallow's concerns a decade ago. The constitution he quotes is 52 years out of date. The LEC reps, MEC reps, and ALPA president are not violating any bylaws. I'm not sure Mr Swallow will know what this means, but the policies he's quoting have been superceded. The OTS pilots have no grounds for a complaint to the CIRB.
END OF STORY. CASE CLOSED.

[Dizzy D]

I'm posting the following on every thread in which John Swallow has raised the issue of seniority at ALPA, because it's pretty devastating to his "case":
I don't know why I didn't think to actually do it earlier, but I finally decided to stop taking Mr Swallow at his word that the references he was posting were correct, and actually look up the documents he's claiming make the One List "impossible". I thought it was strange that he was contacting the ALPA archivist and getting documents from 1956, but it turns out the reason he had to do that is because those documents are archived and no longer relevant. As an ALPA member, I those docs at my fingertips, whereas Mr Swallow wouldn't be privy to such info. Perhaps he hoped that if he bombarded us with screenshots, that we wouldn't take the time to actually look it up.
Mr Swallow asserts that the ALPA constitution of 1956 and Merger Policy require that all seniority be based on date-of-hire, and that those are the only sources of guidance that would be relevant to the current negotiations. It turns out that the ALPA constitution has been updated at least eleven times since 1956, with the most recent version dated Oct 18, 2018. The constitution itself doesn't actually have any guidance regarding seniority lists of any kind, so I looked at the Merger Policy, since Mr Swallow thinks it's the ultimate guide to forming a seniority list. This document was last updated Apr 30, 2009, and now states the following:
4. Seniority List Integration - Negotiations
(c) In cases where one or more parties to the merger has flight deck crew members with grandfather or similar special seniority rights that are limited as to job classification or status within the flight deck crew, the merger representatives shall commence efforts to arrive at a mutually satisfactory method of integration and compilation of such separate special seniority lists as may be necessary and appropriate to preserve and protect such rights in addition to the flight deck crew seniority list.
In addition, ALPA released an information sheet to explain this change in layman's terms: ALPA merger policy calls for the fair and equitable integration of seniority lists. Under the new policy, merger representatives are encouraged to consider themselves primarily as negotiators who should make a strong and focused effort to resolve seniority integration issues, with mediation and final binding arbitration mandated on unresolved issues. As the Committee evaluated the old policy, it became clear that the factors for seniority list integration (SLI) had become a source of controversy. The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category. The new merger policy mandates that the merger representatives, mediators, and arbitrators must consider these factors when constructing a seniority list; however, they are also free to consider other factors as they deem appropriate."
ALPA addressed Mr Swallow's concerns a decade ago. The constitution he quotes is 52 years out of date. The LEC reps, MEC reps, and ALPA president are not violating any bylaws. I'm not sure Mr Swallow will know what this means, but the policies he's quoting have been superceded. The OTS pilots have no grounds for a complaint to the CIRB.
END OF STORY. CASE CLOSED.

Slow clap.